The United States has by far the highest incarceration rate in the world- 707 per 100,000 in 2012 (Coates). This is even more than Russia led by America’s favorite boogeyman, Vladimir Putin, which incarcerates its population at a rate of 463 per 100,000 (Statista). And Russia is the only other industrialized nation that comes close, with the median among all nations being 125 per 100,000 (Liptak). In absolute terms, the United States incarcerates 2.2 million people, 600,000 more than China despite having one-fourth of China’s total population (Coates). Currently, the United States makes up less than 5 percent of the total world population but about 25 percent of the total prison population.
           
​The group most severely impacted by this ubiquitous system of punitive justice has been by far the black population, specifically black males. Although black Americans make up 12% of the total population, they represent a large majority of those imprisoned. In 2000, one in 10 African American men between the ages of 20 and 40 were incarcerated- a rate 10 times higher than their white counterparts (Coates). Further despite evidence that blacks and whites use illicit drugs at nearly identical rates, imprisonment for African-American drug offenders consistently dwarfs the rate for whites. A study published in 2000 by the National Institute on Drug Abuse concluded that white students use cocaine at seven times the rate of black students, crack cocaine at 8 times the rate of black students, and heroin also at 7 times the rate of black students (vol. 1). Another study published in 2000 found that white youth aged 12-17 are more than one-third more likely to have sold drugs than corresponding black youths (U.S. Department of Health).
           
Revealingly, the calls for law and order, which would precipitate mass incarceration, came directly after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Indeed, claims that the social fabric of American society was melting away, leading to violence and lawlessness, largely began as a reaction to the Civil Rights movement. Many conservative politicians blamed civil rights leaders for their doctrine of “direct action” and civil disobedience, claiming their tactics were nothing short of criminal. The then former Vice President Richard Nixon echoed this notion stating, “The deterioration of respect for the rule of law can be traced directly to the spread of the corrosive doctrine that every citizen possesses an inherent right to decide for himself which laws to obey and when to disobey them (Beckett, Sasson).”
           
This rhetoric calling for “law and order” would only become more prominent as conservatives attempted to dismantle the “Great Society” passed by President Johnson, which provided new social programs to the poor. Conservatives were quick to attack this legislation as allowing the poor to become pariahs on the state. To them crime was not due to structural factors, such as economic opportunity or education level, but due to the wickedness of the individual. These sorts of claims would be fundamental for the later rhetoric of what was to be known as Nixon’s Southern Strategy.
           
For the 1968 presidential campaign, the Republicans had developed a strategy to cut into the Democratic voting block known as the “New Deal Coalition”, which consisted of the white south and urban ethnic groups. Southern whites had grown increasingly frustrated with the Democratic party due to their support for desegregation. This created a window of opportunity for the Republican party to pry away millions of voters from the Democrats. The theme of this strategy was “law and order” but it had different subliminal representations. The rhetoric used throughout Nixon’s 1968 and 1972 presidential campaigns emphasized loaded “code words”, which, on the surface, seemed benign, but referred indirectly to racial themes. As Nixon aide, John Ehrlichmann later wrote, “We’ll go after the racists. That subliminal appeal to the anti-black voter was always present in Nixon’s statements and speeches (Beckett, Sasson).”
           
Nixon’s rhetoric not only served as campaign fodder, it also allowed Nixon to target domestic political opponents under the guise of drug enforcement. In an interview with the Atlantic Magazine, Erlichmann also revealed, “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people… We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did.”
           
Enter Ronal Reagan. In his election campaign Reagan used much of the same imagery that proved successful for Nixon. Creating the figure of the “Welfare Queen,” usually envisaged as a black woman defrauding government assistance agencies laughing her way to the bank as she somehow pulls in $150,000 untaxed income per year. This of course played to stereotypes against African Americans as pariahs feeding off the generosity of the government. When elected, Reagan was able to use hysteria about crime to begin a campaign known as the “War on Drugs.”
           
In 1981, FBI Director William Webster stated that, “The drug problem has become so widespread that the FBI must assume a larger role in attacking the problem (Beckett, Sasson).” With Reagan coming into office, this was able to become a reality. Of particular importance is what this new campaign focused its efforts on. Before the 1980s the focus of anti-drug policy was interdiction of foreign drugs, but with the advent of the “War on Drugs,” the emphasis of policy shifted to local law enforcement with increased attention being paid to low-end drug dealers. It also introduced harsher penalties and new mandatory minimums for certain drug offences. With these new policies, imprisonment rates rose drastically and only continued throughout the 90s. Although a Democrat, President Clinton proposed legislation that gave federal support to local police, introduced new mandatory minimums, and further curtailed the rights of former felons.
           
All these new policies regarding drug enforcement drastically increased the numbers of those imprisoned, as well as dramatically hurting the black community. The criminal justice system, though formally color blind, has elements that allow for racial discrimination to flourish. First is the discretion given police officers.
           
The ubiquity of the drug trade means officers must be more proactive in enforcement. The law has allowed for significant discretion for individual officers in their enforcement of drug policies. The simple answer for the wide disparity between the incarceration rates for blacks and whites, is that police are not kicking in doors at Harvard or Yale, busting affluent, white college kids. If this were the case, we would have rid ourselves of this draconian punitive system. In reality, the “War on Drugs” is being waged in poor, urban areas populated by African-Americans.
           
This can largely be explained by cognitive biases against African Americans. This has been influenced by stereotypes of black people making them out to be criminals. For instance, during the 1980s, the Reagan administration ran a wildly successful media campaign focusing on crack use in inner-cities. Through the hysteria of “crack babies” and the constant media portrayals of this “epidemic”, blacks were portrayed as inclined to violence and drug addiction.
           
Even if we will not admit it, we all have our own biases and police are not exempt. This is shown in virtually any program that allows for police discretion. For instance, the New York City “Stop and Frisk” policy, which allowed police to stop and search pedestrians at their discretion, was found by a Columbia University professor to lead to blacks being stopped significantly more than whites independent of other social or economic factors that could lead to increased police activity (Coates). Additionally, statistics of police activity in Greensboro, North Carolina shows that police pulled over African Americans for traffic violations at twice the rate as white drivers. African Americans were also much more likely to be asked to submit to “voluntary searches” after being pulled over (LaFraniere, Lehren). All of this even though, when searched, whites were more likely to be carrying drugs or weapons (LaFraniere, Lehren). Across the spectrum, despite similar usage rates, blacks are significantly more likely to be arrested for drug use.

In addition to police discretion, prosecutor discretion has worked against African Americans. Prosecutors have the most power in the criminal justice system because they can choose which crimes they will charge defendants with and how many. Several studies have shown that this generally leads to bad results for black people. A study by the San Jose Mercury News reviewed 7,000 criminal cases that were matched based on crime and criminal history. The results showed that whites were far more successful in the plea-bargaining process as well as all other aspects of the pretrial negotiations. Additionally, questioning of prosecutor discretion has been further curtailed by court cases such as Armstrong v. United, which makes it nearly impossible for a defendant to prove racial discrimination while being charged for a crime. The power of prosecutors allows for the cognitive biases in criminal judgments to influence the length and severity of punishment (Alexander).
           
The next step in creating a criminal underclass is the loss of rights after conviction. First, and potentially most important, is the inability to attain federally funded government assistance. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 called for the eviction of any public housing tenants who engaged in criminal activity. As President, Bill Clinton advocated a “one strike and you’re out” policy, encouraging public housing agencies to bar persons with any criminal history from attaining public housing (Alexander). Further, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act barred individuals convicted of a drug-related offence from receiving any federally funded public assistance.
           
Nearly every state allows employers to discriminate based on an applicant’s criminal record. This means that an ex-felon who just left prison and is attempting to reenter the job market may find it impossible to find employment. Also, when a criminal leaves prison, they may be saddled with massive debt from different agencies. These factors, in addition to the denial of federal economic support makes the economic viability of former prisoners almost impossible. With so many factors working against them former criminals may find it impossible to survive in the traditional economy. This usually leads to intense poverty and potentially a return to the illegal economy.

Also, due to harsher penalties on light drug offenses all of this can be easier to attain. Indeed, policies such as “Three strikes and you’re out,” can make even minor drug charges result in serious jail time. This means that discrimination in policing of low-level drug crimes can result in huge numbers of African Americans losing essential rights. This is particularly the case for Marijuana, which, like other drugs, white people and black people use at similar rates, but black people get arrested for at much higher rates. This stark reality is shown in the following graphs showing usage rates and arrest rates for Marijuana (Mathews).

I believe that all of this adds up to a deliberate form of social control that ensures that African Americans are unable to escape poverty or prison. Our swelling prisons are a result of former segregationists restructuring criminal law to discriminate against blacks. The bottom line is, after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we had two choices for the future. We could provide support for black communities through education and social initiatives, or we could devise a new form of social control. It seems we have chosen the latter.

The result has been renewed suffering for an already exhausted people. The entire criminal system wreaks of injustice and discrimination. Whether it is purposeful or not, it can no longer be accepted. In our frenzy to punish criminals, we forgot elements of our humanity. The U.S has some of the strictest drug laws in the world and the most stringent penalties of any industrialized nation. We have come so far as a nation, but every time we seem to make progress we take a step back. We were on the verge of something great in 1964 but our lack of vigilance let it fall through. As W.E.B Dubois said, “The slave went free; stood a brief moment in the sun; then moved back again toward slavery (Dubois).”
 

Citations


- Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age   of Colorblindness. New, 2010. Print.

- Beckett, Katherine, and Theodore Sasson. The Politics of Injustice Crime and Punishment in America. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2004. Print.

- "Countries with the Largest Number of Prisoners per 100,000 of the
National Population, as of July 2015." Statista. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.
​
- Coates, The-Nahisi. "The Black Family in the Age of Mass
Incarceration." The Atlantic, October 2015 ed. Web. 22 Nov. 2015.

About the Author:
​I'm Alex Zambito. I'm born and raised in Savannah, GA. I graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 2017 with a degree in History and Sociology. I am currently seeking a Masters in History  at Brooklyn College. My Interest include the history of Socialist experiments and proletarian struggles across the world.

​Douglass keenly observes that, despite the seemingly beautiful innovation in concentrations of wealth, such as we find in the metropolises and mansions of the West, humans are not naturally inclined to attain such luxury. He then states the obvious conclusion of the article; that wealth (not to be confused with money) should be distributed more equitably among the populace, and that most, if not all, would be happy with such a distribution. This is nearing exact synonymity with Marx and Engels’ conception of the socialist mode of production.

Once again, review of Marxist conceptions can put Douglass’ intentions into context perfectly. Lenin explains that for revolution (or any major change, for that matter) to occur, the lower class in society must become conscious and convinced of the need for revolution. Without such consciousness, society will stagnate, with change unable to occur. So, just as can be found in his other writings, Douglass’ most famous work is supported and contextualized by leftist ideological principles.

​

Once you break down the verbose nature of his prose and summarize his thoughts in modern tongue, the conclusion here becomes numbingly simple; Douglass believed that the system of wage slavery which replaced chattel was just as potent a form of control as chattel slavery was itself. If Frederick Douglass really was the libertarian champion that modern pundits portray him as, wouldn’t he have only opposed slavery for it’s oppressive hierarchical structure? Wouldn’t his flow of critiques have ceased in the presence of a more libertarian capitalism? Indeed, it is true he would have. But this was not the case. Douglass did not decree the struggle for liberation was over. Instead, he correctly postulated that the socio-political conditions that allowed for chattel slavery to thrive were still alive and well. Douglass knew, just as Marx had outlined, that the only way to end economic oppression of the workers was to adopt a socialist mode of production and give those very workers control of the fruits of their labor. This is even reinforced by his mention of slaves being left to their previous owners. In the most literal possible sense, Douglass noted that former slaves were still, ‘owned,’ by the same people. The only change that occurred was in the manner slaveholders had to go about forcing reliance.
​

Citations

[1] Karp, Matt, and Frederick Douglass. “Frederick Douglass Railed Against Economic Inequality.” Jacobin, 20 Feb. 2020, jacobinmag.com/2020/02/frederick-douglass-railed-against-economic-inequality
[2] Engels, Frederick. “Principles of Communism.” Marxists Internet Archives, 1999, www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm.
[3] Lenin, Vladimir. “The State and Revolution.” Marxists Internet Archives, 1999, www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/.
[4]  Douglass, Frederick. Frederick Douglass's Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. Chelsea House, 1988
[5] Ibid.
[6] Lenin, Vladimir. “‘Left-Wing’ Communism: An Infantile Disorder.” Marxist Internet Archive, Progress Publishers, 1999, www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/.
[7] “Wage Slave.” Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wage slave.
[8]  Douglass, Frederick. Three Addresses on the Relations Subsisting between the White and Colored People of the United States. Kessinger Publishing, 2010.
​[9] Ibid.

About the Author:
​My name is Simon and I am a Marxist-Leninist born on the front range of Colorado. I currently live in Central Missouri and attend Camdenton Highschool. I am unusually young for the position of writer, which isn't an abnormality lost on me. I focus primarily on contemporary international issues with a particular focus on socialist states and their interactions. I hope to begin organizational work as soon as I am able.

This past 3rd of November the interest of capitalist class wasn’t just assured a win in the presidential election, but it also took a big win in California with the passing of Proposition 22. Proposition 22 was a ballot proposal to maintain the gig economy workers of companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates, etc. under the status of ‘Independent Contractors’. A vote ‘yes’ would mean that the workers in these sectors would remain categorized as independent contractors, a vote ‘no’ would force these app-based gig companies to provide “basic protections to their workers”[1]. After outspending the opposition 12 to 1 by pouring more than 200 million[2] on the ballot initiative, gig economy companies like Uber, Lyft, and more, won.

The opposition to the bill was led by various labor organization, but at the head of it was the California Labor Federation (CLF). CLF understood that the passing of this bill meant boosting profits for these gig companies by “denying their drivers’ right to a minimum wage, paid sick leave and safety protections.”[3]
​
Companies like Lyft advertised that the passing of prop 22 meant that workers in these industries would maintain their ‘flexibility’, and fearmongered by stating that up to 90% of drivers could lose their jobs if the bill did not go through. They also mentioned that a vote yes would give drivers “more benefits”, of course, without mentioning that the extra ‘benefits’ they would get are still nowhere near what they would be required to give them if they were considered as workers and not independent contractors.[4] To urge a ‘yes’ vote, these companies went as far as showing videos of single moms saying they wouldn't be able to figure out how to make extra money for their family[5] if the bill didn’t pass. This massive influx of advertisement money was what caused a vote that was polling in at 38% six weeks before its election, to rise 19 points and win.[6]

While these gig economy app based companies have grown to be worth billions of dollars, the employees whose labor their growth has depended on have been partaking in worldwide protest because of their poverty wages.[7] Taking this into consideration, and the fact that only 38% was in favor of the bill just six weeks before the vote, it is fair to say that the bill passed because more than $200 million was spent propagandizing people in favor of it. A nice exemplar of how our American Democracy works.

The core of the $200 million that was spent was aimed at convincing folks that this was the route that would prove to be the most beneficial for workers. Although not all working families fell for this, the outcome demonstrates quite a few did. The wealth of the owning class proved to be a sufficient engine for the ideologically coercing of workers into consenting against their own interests. What we have here is not the usual schematics of a working class who participates in electoral processes whereby both candidates represent the interest of their enemies; but a working class that when confronted with a clear dichotomous decision of advancing or regressing their interest as a class, was conditioned enough to overwhelmingly vote against their own interest.  

These ideological tactics of coercing workers into consenting against their own interest are not new. In the days of child labor, the arguments for its maintenance usually presented the same form of cynical concern for workers and their families, stating that families would be unable to survive without the children contributing, and using analogies of child labor at the farm[8] to naturalize and thus legitimate the continuation of such bruteness as having kids under 10 years old lose limbs or die working 10-12 hours a day for miserable wages.[9]

In terms of relations of power between labor and capital, the neoliberal capitalism we see today is perhaps closer to the conditions in the time of Mother Jones, than it was after the second world war. Although child labor is not around, the hard-fought victories by unions and communists for workers are constantly attacked and defeated. The last four decades of neoliberal capitalism has been a continuous disempowerment of workers through the cutting of benefits, stagnating of wages, and repression of unionization efforts. The gig economy takes this even further, through an employer’s complete removal of responsibility for workers. By categorizing workers as ‘independent contractors’, the ‘flexibility’ they continuously speak of is one that is only for them. Flexibility for the capitalist entails the removal of responsibilities for his workers, and subsequently, increasing profits for him. But for the worker - regardless of how much the capitalist’s propaganda says they are now ‘flexible’ and ‘free’ – flexibility means insecurity, less pay, and less benefits. Like in sex, flexibility for the worker here only means he can get screwed more efficiently.
​
The passing of this bill in California entails that it will probably be the first domino in many to come. Soon, our working class will face an instability that has not been seen in the last two centuries. The question we must ask ourselves is not just 'what are we doing to prevent this?'; for this question takes a necessarily defensive approach. If we are only defending, although we might win some battles and lose others, those wins are not steps forward, but the prevention of backward steps. This puts us in a pickle between maintaining our position or taking steps backwards. Unlike in sports, were defense is the best form of offense, in the struggles of labor and capital offense is the best form of defense. We must be ready to counter the barbarities that neoliberal capitalism is taking us towards. This is something that cannot be done if our efforts are limited to protecting previous gains, we must be ready to affirm a socialist tomorrow. Our situation is at a crossroad, now more than ever does Luxemburg’s famous dictum ring true, it’s either “socialism or barbarism”.


Citations


[1] “What is Prop 22, the Uber/Lyft Ballot Measure?,” California Labor Federation, https://calaborfed.org/no-on-prop-22-faq/

[2] Sarah Jones, “Uber and Lyft’s Proposition 22 Win Is a Warning Shot to Democrats,” Intelligencer, last modified November 4, 2020, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/11/uber-lyfts-proposition-22-was-a-warning-shot-to-democrats.html#:~:text=In%20the%20weeks%20leading%20up%20to%20November%203%2C,of%20the%20measure%20regularly%20featured%20people%20of%20color.

[3] “What is Prop 22, the Uber/Lyft Ballot Measure?,” California Labor Federation,

[4] “What is Prop 22 | California Drivers | Vote YES on Prop 22 | Rideshare | Benefits | Lyft,” Lyft, October 8, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7QJLgdQaf4

[5] Suhauna Hussain, Johana Bhuiyan, Ryan Menezes, “Prop. 22: Here's how your L.A. neighborhood voted on the gig worker measure,” Yahoo!Finance, last modified November 13, 2020, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/uber-lyft-persuaded-california-vote-140036656.html

[6] Ibid.

[7] Keith Griffith, “Uber drivers around the world go on strike to protest 'poverty wages' as the company prepares to go public at a valuation of $91billion” Daily Mail, last modified May 8, 2019, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7006975/Uber-drivers-world-strike-protest-low-wages.html

[8] Bill Kauffman, “The Child Labor Amendment Debate of the 1920's” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, last modified January 29, 2018, https://mises.org/library/child-labor-amendment-debate-1920s-0

[9] Mother Jones, “Civilization in Southern Mills” Industrial Workers of the World Historical Archives, March 1901, https://archive.iww.org/history/library/MotherJones/civilization_in_southern_mills/

About the Author:
​My name is Carlos and I am a Cuban-American Marxist. I graduated with a B.A. in Philosophy from Loras College and am currently a graduate student and Teachers Assistant in Philosophy at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. My area of specialization is Marxist Philosophy.  My current research interest is in the history of American radical thought, and examining how philosophy can play a revolutionary role . I also run the philosophy YouTube channel Tu Esquina Filosofica and organized for Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020.

In the US we have the popular idea that science is apolitical. And this may be true when it comes to results in a lab, but the conditions in which this knowledge is created certainly are political. Decisions over what knowledge is important, what projects receive funding, how studies are constructed, and, as we will see, who gets tested on are deeply influenced by political and economic considerations. Throughout much of American history many of these considerations were of the racist, imperialist, and capitalist variety. In this essay, I will explore the histories of the Tuskegee and Guatemalan Syphilis Studies to illustrate this history. 
​
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study was a long-term observational study meant to track the affects of latent syphilis in black men.  However, before we can get to the study itself, we need to understand a few basic things about Syphilis and the state of science at the time. Syphilis is caused by a bacterium known as Treponema pallidum and can be acquired through sexual activity or congenitally, through an infected mother. Once infected, the disease appears in three stages. The first stage of sexually transmitted Syphilis is characterized by painless chancre sores on the point of entry followed by flu-like symptoms. If left untreated the disease enters a prolonged latent stage until it reemerges with an assortment of symptoms such as skin sores, bone decay and cardiovascular damage. The third and final stage can erupt years later causing serious neurological damage leading to blindness, insanity, paralysis, and death.[1]

In the late 1920s, US medical science was heavily influenced by eugenicist and Social-Darwinian racial theories, with Syphilis being no exception. This led many doctors of the time- particularly those at the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS)-  to believe Syphilis followed a different course in black people than in whites, arguing black people were more likely to suffer from cardio-syphilis while white people were more likely to have neuro-syphilis.[2] Many of these scientists also believed black people were a uniquely “Syphilis soaked race”. According to logic twisted by white supremacy, black people, having lost the enlightened influence of their white masters, had reverted to barbaric tendencies characterized by sexual profligacy and immorality making them more susceptible to Syphilis. Further, they argued black people were suspicious of western medicine, which was somewhat true.[3] However, rather than being due to an irrational fear of treatment borne out of ignorance as the PHS doctors believed, this was more a natural reaction to the already well-established proclivity of white scientists to experiment on black bodies.[4] But it seems the rule among these doctors was that any evidence to the contrary, such as the fact that most Syphilis cases were transmitted congenitally not sexually[5] or that black people often did seek out treatment when it was available[6], were dismissed. With this, many doctors concluded black people were a doomed race and attempts to treat them would make little difference, leading PHS Physician Thomas W. Murrel to write:

Which brings us to Macon County, Alabama. Home to the famous Tuskegee Institute. Macon County’s population was majority black with at least half of these black people living in crushing poverty.[8] Many black people in Macon County were tenant farmers or sharecroppers which were special forms of debt-peonage. Under these arrangements, the farmers did not own the land they worked on, the house they lived in, or the tools they used. These were loaned to the farmers at usurious rates by their mainly white landlords. Often these farmers ended up trapped in debt effectively chained to the land like Feudal serfs.[9] As far as medical care went, there were 16 doctors in Macon County, but fifteen of them were white, overpriced, and only accepted cash which poor farmers rarely had. There was only one overworked black doctor who would accept other forms of payment such as livestock. Additionally, the medical facility at Tuskegee Institute would treat some cases, but only a fraction of what was needed as the facility’s purpose was to treat students and faculty of Tuskegee.[10] As it was, medical treatment in Macon County was virtually non-existent for black people. This vulnerability made the black people of Macon County ideal subjects for the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.

The beginnings of the study were innocent enough. In 1929, the Julius Rosenwald Fund approached the PHS about beginning a series of testing and treatment facilities for Syphilis in the south. After a successful campaign in Bolivar County, Mississippi, the Rosenwald Fund provided the PHS with $50,000 to begin similar testing and treatment programs in the rural south. The PHS chose five counties in the south to begin these programs with one of them being Macon County, Alabama.[11] Testing began in 1930, but quickly hit some major issues. Faced with a population unable to travel great distances to reach testing sites and suspicious of white doctors, the PHS began employing black healthcare workers to travel to these communities to carry out testing. Additionally, researchers did not tell patients they were being tested for Syphilis. Instead, they called it “bad blood”- a catch-all term for various diseases of the time.[12] Using the standard Wasserman test, the study found an average infection rate of 25% across the five counties, with Macon County having the highest of 36%. Further, the study found that mass treatment among these communities was feasible, but as they prepared to begin treatment, the Great Depression began.[13]

Exemplifying the pitfalls of making your medical research contingent on private generosity, the Great Depression drained the Rosenwald Fund and, with it, the possibility of continuing treatment. However, Dr. Taliaferro Clark, head of the PHS Venereal Disease Division, saw an opportunity in Macon County. Noting the high rate of Syphilis and continuing to believe black people would reject medical care, Clark wanted to continue the study without treatment to observe the long-term course of the disease in black men. Clark hoped to test if the disease did manifest differently in black men than in whites and explore the possibility that mass treatment among black people was unnecessary.[14] Clark, in conjunction with fellow PHS Dr. Raymond Vonderlehr, decided to carry out a six month observational study of black men with Syphilis and managed to milk another $10,000 out of the Rosenwald Fund on the condition that treatment be given after the six month observational period.[15]

Having learned from previous efforts, the PHS enlisted the help of black health professionals such as nurse Eunice Rivers and Dr. H. L. Harris Jr. to ameliorate fears black subjects may have. They also enlisted the help of the famous Tuskegee Institute. Founded by Booker T. Washington in 1898, it was one of the most prestigious black colleges in the United States. Eager to gain funding and participate in a national medical study, the administration jumped at the opportunity, offering the services of the university’s medical facilities headed by Eugene H. Dibble.[16]

Continuing to refer to it as “Bad Blood”, the PHS induced people to join the study with promises of treatment. To determine if a person was right for the study, the subject was given two Wasserman tests, a full physical examination, and medical history interviews. Finally, the men were given very painful spinal taps under the guise of “special free treatment” to determine if they had neurosyphilis.[17] To keep men who insisted on treatment interested, Dr. Vonderlehr often gave out useless mercury ointments or insufficient doses of neoarsphenamine as fake treatments.[18] Men chosen for the project were over 25 years old, had a history of limited or no treatment, and had had Syphilis for more than 5 years. Ultimately, the study recruited 439 men with Syphilis and a control group of 185 men without Syphilis.[19] And despite the fact that black people proved not only receptive to treatment, but often insisted on it, disproving their assumptions about black men’s attitudes to medicine, the doctors decided to continue the study in 1933 once the Rosenwald funding ran out and treatment completely ended.[20]

After the group was chosen, the study was mainly confined to frequent visits by nurse Rivers to inquire into how the men’s condition and occasional visits to the clinic to have blood drawn and more spinal taps conducted. However, the PHS also sought to prevent the men from seeking treatment from other sources. For instance, Dr. Vonderlehr met with groups of black doctors in the area asking them to not treat the men. In 1941, the PHS went as far as to provide the draft board with a list of names of men who were to be excluded from Syphilis treatment if they were drafted for World War II.[22] Most damningly, the researchers continued this after penicillin was discovered to be an effective cure for Syphilis and had been successfully used in treatment campaigns across the country.[23]
​
The rest of the PHS researchers’ activity in the interim were geared towards securing bodies for autopsy once the men died. The doctors needed the autopsies to analyze the impact Syphilis had on the men’s bodies, but rural black populations were strongly opposed to this and if the men died at home instead of the Tuskegee hospital, the doctors may not get the body. Thus, the doctors used nurse Rivers to track the men’s movement to ensure the men died at the hospital or persuade their families to assent to autopsy by referring to it as an “operation”. For extra incentive, the doctors also offered to cover the burial costs of the men, which was a major inducement as a dignified burial would have been a major expense to these families.[24] Importantly, the doctors kept their intentions under wraps, with Dr. Vonderlehr noting, "Naturally, it is not my intention to let it be generally known that the main object of the present activities is the bringing of the men to necropsy.”[25]

While it may not have been a major impetus to start the project, a profit motive certainly provided justification for its continuation. Perhaps the only actual contribution the study made to science was to serve as a source of Syphilis infected blood. Tests available at the time were notoriously inaccurate, but, because scientists would not know how to culture Syphilis independently in a lab until the 1950s, they required a constant supply of Syphilis infected blood to develop new tests. As part of a broader group of studies known as the Cooperative Clinical Group, samples obtained from the men through continued blood drawing and spinal taps, were supplied to the PHS to develop more sensitive tests. Using these samples, the PHS did manage to develop two more accurate tests, which the PHS then marketed globally making a nice profit.[26]

Despite many PHS employees raising ethical concerns over the years, the project was continued until 1972, when a former PHS employee informed a journalist friend who broke the story for the Associated Press. As public outcry grew, the study was swiftly ended in March of 1973. After this, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) commissioned an investigation which issued a milquetoast condemnation, which many members of the investigation claimed had been watered down against their will.[27] In 1973, Macon County lawyer, Fred Gray, filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the participants of the Tuskegee Study. They eventually settled out of court in 1974 for a fraction of what they had sued for. Each living subject in the experimental group were given $37,500 each, with $15,000 for their heirs, and nearly $1 million in legal fees to Fred Gray which was to be taken from the men’s payments. Those living members of the control group were given less.[28]

As for the scientific value of the study, the results were ultimately worthless. During the study 12 men in the control group contracted Syphilis and were simply switched over to the experimental group.[29] Additionally, despite the best efforts of researchers, many of the men did receive some treatment over the years, compromising their untreated status.[30] Ultimately, the cost for this worthless information was at least 16 men who died directly from Syphilis, although the number could possibly be much greater.[31] And, since the men were not notified of their infection, they likely infected others.[32]

The legacy of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study is far reaching. It is still often cited as a reason for black Americans’ distrust of the medical profession. And, while the Tuskegee study is well known among black people, it is far from the singular reason for black distrust in modern medicine. It was part of a broader and longer legacy of testing on minorities in the United States and people in the global south. However, one of the most famous accusations against the Tuskegee Study- that doctors deliberately infected black men- is a misconception.[33] The PHS did not purposely infect people at Tuskegee; they did that in Guatemala.

Following World War II, it was known that Penicillin could be used as an effective cure for Syphilis and several other diseases, but researchers also wanted to know if penicillin could be used as a prophylaxis against venereal disease. During the war, the military had distributed prophylaxis ointments, but they were painful when used, incentivizing the government to find less painful ways of guarding against venereal disease.[34] Previously, in 1944, the PHS had done experiments on prophylaxis against gonorrhea at the Terre Haute Federal Penitentiary in the U.S. “Volunteers” were injected with gonorrhea, but the project was abandoned after the doctors had trouble getting subjects to exhibit symptoms.[35] After this failure, the PHS set its sites on the global south to answer this question.

In 1946 the PHS dispatched Dr. Julius Butler- who had been involved in the Terre Haute experiment and would go on to be involved in the Tuskegee study- to Guatemala to test the possibilities of using penicillin to prevent contraction of venereal disease. At the time, much of Guatemala was owned by the United Fruit Company putting it firmly in the control of the U.S. empire. Additionally, the little public health infrastructure that existed was in large part controlled by the U.S. and the leading venereal disease public health official was the PHS trained Dr. Juan Funes.[36] The PHS again enlisted the most vulnerable populations. Throughout the study, subjects included, prisoners, orphans, patients in Guatemala’s only mental asylum, and soldiers stationed in the capital.
​
They began with inmates at Guatemala City’s Central Penitentiary. At the time, Guatemala had legal prostitution and prostitutes could visit incarcerated men. Using this, the PHS payed prostitutes who had tested positive for Syphilis or Gonorrhea to visit the men in prison. If a prostitute did not have Syphilis, the researchers would place an inoculum on the woman’s cervix, hoping this would transmit the disease. The men were given tests before and after the visits from the prostitutes and were divided into groups to be given various chemical and biological prophylaxis and the results observed. However, unlike the Tuskegee study, subjects were supposed to be given adequate penicillin to cure them.[37] The researchers quickly ran into difficulties, as prostitutes and prisoners proved much harder to control than they had expected, and not enough men were contracting the disease. Also, there was still the problem with the sensitivity of available tests, which frequently gave off false positives and negatives.[38] The researchers quickly abandoned the prison experiment and turned to the national orphanage. They conducted blood tests on 439 children and observed the results, hoping to develop more reliable testing methods.[39]

Finally, they turned to the nation’s only mental asylum. Here, because they were not able to introduce prostitutes, the PHS doctors directly inoculated patients by introducing Syphilitic material directly to the genitalia, telling asylum officials this was just another form of drug.[40] Subjects were then given various forms of prophylaxis, and, if the subject became infected, they were supposed to be cured. The PHS combined both methods of infection on soldiers living in Guatemala City’s barracks, using both direct inoculation and prostitutes and, again, providing various forms of prophylaxis to be tested.[41] According to the U.S. Bioethical Issues Commission, in total, 1308 subjects were inoculated with some form of STD, 678 people received treatment, and over 5,000 were included in diagnostic studies. The Guatemalan government puts the total inoculated at 2,082. During the course of the study, 83 subjects died, though it is not clear whether or not these were as a result of inoculations.[42]

So, what can we learn from these studies? The most obvious lesson is the role racist and eugenicist theories have played in the history of American medicine. It is important to understand these are not aberrations. Testing on vulnerable people, particularly slaves, has been a common feature of U.S. medicine over the past two centuries- see Marion Sims and the development of modern gynecology. Further, these studies were supported at the highest levels of powerful government institutions, showing how access to political and economic power can shape scientific research. Throughout both these studies, the PHS used both to induce cooperation from smaller institutions such as the Tuskegee Institute and Guatemalan public health officials. Often these institutions leveraged their collaboration in the studies to gain supplies for treatment of people who would not have received treatment otherwise, perfectly illustrating the problems of power imbalances in research. Finally, in the age of Covid, it shows us how unethical medical researchers can prey on the most vulnerable populations, particularly those in the clutches of U.S. imperialism.

​Citations


[1] Washington, Harriet. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present, 138. New York City, NY: Broadway Books, 2008.
 

[2] Blake, Lindsay. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: Medical Research Versus Human Rights. https://augusta.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10675.2/577096/Blake_Tuskegee%20Paper.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

[3] Brandt, Allan M. 1978. "Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee Syphilis study." The Hastings Center Report 8(6): 21-29.

[4] Washington, Harriet. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present. New York City, NY: Broadway Books, 2008

[5] Ibid, 139

[6] Brandt, Allan M. 1978. "Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee Syphilis study." The Hastings Center Report 8(6): 21-29.

[7] Ibid

[8] Washington, Harriet. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present, 137. New York City, NY: Broadway Books, 2008

[9] “Foundations of Oppression: The Antebellum South Appalachian Class Dynamic.” libcom.org. Accessed November 10, 2020. https://libcom.org/history/foundations-oppression-antebellum-south-appalachian-class-dynamic.

[10] Washington, Harriet. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present, 137. New York City, NY: Broadway Books, 2008

[11] Blake, Lindsay. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: Medical Research Versus Human Rights. https://augusta.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10675.2/577096/Blake_Tuskegee%20Paper.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
 

[12] Ibid

[13] Ibid

[14] Brandt, Allan M. 1978. "Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee Syphilis study." The Hastings Center Report 8(6): 21-29.

[15] Blake, Lindsay. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: Medical Research Versus Human Rights. https://augusta.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10675.2/577096/Blake_Tuskegee%20Paper.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

[16] Ibid

[17] Brandt, Allan M. 1978. "Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee Syphilis study." The Hastings Center Report 8(6): 21-29.

[18] Ibid

[19] Reverby, S.M. Ethical Failures and History Lessons: The U.S. Public Health Service Research Studies in Tuskegee and Guatemala. Public Health Rev 34, 13 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391665

[20] Brandt, Allan M. 1978. "Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee Syphilis study." The Hastings Center Report 8(6): 21-29.

[21] “The Experiment.” Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Accessed November 11, 2020. https://tuskegeesyphilisexperimentt.weebly.com/the-experiment.html.

[22] Ibid

[23] Washington, Harriet. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present, 144-145. New York City, NY: Broadway Books, 2008

[24] Ibid, 142-143

[25] Brandt, Allan M. 1978. "Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee Syphilis study." The Hastings Center Report 8(6): 21-29.

[26] Washington, Harriet. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present, . New York City, NY: Broadway Books, 2008

[27] Roy B. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment: medical ethics, constitutionalism, and property in the body. Harv J Minor Public Health. 1995 Fall-Winter;1(1):11-5. PMID: 11656513.

[28] Blake, Lindsay. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: Medical Research Versus Human Rights. https://augusta.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10675.2/577096/Blake_Tuskegee%20Paper.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

[29] Reverby, S.M. Ethical Failures and History Lessons: The U.S. Public Health Service Research Studies in Tuskegee and Guatemala. Public Health Rev 34, 13 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391665

[30] Ibid

[31] Ibid

[32] Ibid

[33] REVERBY, S.M. (2001), More than Fact and Fiction: Cultural Memory and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Hastings Center Report, 31: 22-28. https://doi.org/10.2307/3527701

[34] Reverby, S. (2011). “Normal Exposure” and Inoculation Syphilis: A PHS “Tuskegee” Doctor in Guatemala, 1946–1948. Journal of Policy History, 23(1), 6-28. doi:10.1017/S0898030610000291

[35] Reverby, S.M. Ethical Failures and History Lessons: The U.S. Public Health Service Research Studies in Tuskegee and Guatemala. Public Health Rev 34, 13 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391665

[36] Ibid

[37] Reverby, S. (2011). “Normal Exposure” and Inoculation Syphilis: A PHS “Tuskegee” Doctor in Guatemala, 1946–1948. Journal of Policy History, 23(1), 6-28. doi:10.1017/S0898030610000291

[38] Ibid

[39] Ibid

[40] Ibid

[41] Ibid

[42] Reverby, S.M. Ethical Failures and History Lessons: The U.S. Public Health Service Research Studies in Tuskegee and Guatemala. Public Health Rev 34, 13 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391665

About the Author:
​
​I'm Alex Zambito. I'm born and raised in Savannah, GA. I graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 2017 with a degree in History and Sociology. I am currently seeking a Masters in History  at Brooklyn College. My Interest include the history of Socialist experiments and proletarian struggles across the world.

As David Walker conveys throughout his Appeal to the Coloured Citizens of the World, African American people have historically been treated in such a manner that arguably makes them the most oppressed group of people in recent history (Walker and Hinks 2000, 6-7). In regards to environmental conditions, African Americans have historically been discriminated against in the same way, both directly and indirectly (Williams 2018, 253-255). Environmental injustice towards minorities is a common feature of many American cities today and this is not only a recent phenomenon; as the Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty (2008) report suggests, race and environment seem to be inextricably linked in most American cities, as areas that were mostly black “suffer from greater environmental risks than the larger society”. (Bullard et al 2008, 377)
​
Throughout my research, I attempted to find the cause of this discrimination that negatively influences the lives of many African Americans today. I specifically looked through documentation of segregation throughout American history to answer the question of the extent segregation, both in its de facto and de jure forms, plays a role in shaping the environmental injustices associated with environmental racism in the United States today. For context, de jure segregation refers to “the legalized segregation of Black and White people” while de facto segregation refers to the form of segregation rooted in “common understanding and personal choice” (Edupedia 2018). Thus, throughout my investigation, I aimed to determine how both of these forms of historical segregation have caused the environmental injustices that face African American people today. Through my analysis, I have concluded that both de facto and de jure segregation have had an immense influence on the difference in environmental conditions in locations where most African American people reside as opposed to communities where most white people live.

De jure segregation was a common feature in the South following Reconstruction. Its implications on the region and its people are vast (Oldfield 2004, 71-91). Its roots in Southern politics were established in the Reconstruction period, culminating with the Supreme Court decision that legally permitted segregation in the form of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which declared that “separate but equal” public spaces were legal under the Constitution (Supreme Court of the United States 1896). Plessy v Ferguson was essential in causing the conditions that have brought upon the environmental oppression in the South. By legally allowing for the racialization of geographical distribution, (by declaring “separate but equal” as constitutional) the federal government allowed for whites in the South to create geographies that were to their advantage (as in, whites used their power to move to nicer communities and to pass laws that kept minority groups in less desirable areas) (Hoelscher 2003, 671). By harnessing the power to create their own geographies and to influence the demographic makeup of a given area or neighborhood during the era of Jim Crow, the whites in the South were effectively able to choose to reside in communities that were cleaner and nicer, which could be seen as a direct cause of the environmental racism that plagues the nation today.

Through their report on the demographic variation in high and low-lying communities in the South, Ueland and Warf concentrate on the racialization of topography (the differences in altitude between communities that were mostly white and communities that were mostly black) in the region. They conclude that, in a majority of Southern cities, African Americans tended to reside in lower-lying communities, which were more prone to environmental hazards and health risks (Ueland and Warf 2006, 50-73). Through the decision that Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) established, segregation was a legal phenomenon for many years and, because of this, whites in the South were able to continue to oppress black people through the usage of geography.

I believe that, as a direct result of the segregation that the 1896 decision yielded, environmental racism was produced. Had it not been for the legality of the policy “separate but equal,” whites in the South would not have been as easily able to have the power to create geographies and communities that segregated themselves off from black people. Through Ueland and Warf’s report on the geographical causes of environmental racism in the South, it is plausible to argue that de jure segregation in the Jim Crow South does indeed still have implications in furthering environmental racism as the altitudinal difference between black communities and white communities, which was, at least in part, due to the legality of segregation established by Plessy v. Ferguson. Therefore, de jure segregation in the South stemming from policies established by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (as well as a multitude of other laws passed in the Jim Crow South) has a great influence on modern-day environmental racism as it allowed for the creation of geographies that favored white people and pushed minorities into communities that were more environmentally hazardous.
​
By the same token, segregation that was enabled through the creation of urban infrastructure, the suburbanization of the white community, and other forms of de facto segregation that have caused the environmental inequalities that shape many American cities today. To begin, in Los Angeles, African Americans reside in districts that have disproportionately more environmental hazards, which “is largely a function of severe spatial containment and the historic practice of locating hazardous land uses in black areas” (Paulido 2017, 31). Despite not being a part of the Jim Crow South, Los Angeles still exhibits similar racial injustices environmentally as the segregated Southern cities, thus supporting the notion that environmental racism is not solely a product of de jure segregation. Since Los Angeles’ environmental racism, according to Pulido, stems from segregation based on de facto strategies employed by whites to empower themselves through advantageous geographies (for example, Pulido cites white communities in LA making harsh zoning laws to keep minorities out), one can plausibly argue that de facto segregation could play a crucial role in the racist environmental landscapes of the modern-day United States (Pulido 2017, 31).

One may critique this argument by pointing out its inability to be generalized to most American cities. However, this trend of de facto mannerisms of the mid and late 1900s contributing to modern-day environmental racism can be seen through analyzing the impact of these mannerisms on the landscapes of other modern U.S. cities. For example, freeways in the Chicago area have adversely impacted African Americans there. As claimed by Rashad Shabazz, “the mammoth Dan Ryan Expressway, which, after its opening in 1967, cut off access to Bridgeport, the working/middle-class, white, and resource-rich community…” which resulted in a wide range of consequences for Chicago’s black population (Shabazz 2017, 64). The construction of the I-90/I-94 freeway complex through Southern Chicago directly resulted in environmental consequences that unjustly affect African Americans as it spatially contained Chicago’s black population to the so-called “Black Belt,” which was “roughly a seven-mile-long by one-mile-wide strip of land” (Shabazz 2017, 40). As Illinois’ Better Government Association cites, the South Side neighborhoods of Chicago (that were cut off from white neighborhoods by the construction of freeways like the Dan Ryan) are some of the most polluted and unhealthy environments in the city’s metro area (Chase and Judge 2019). Thus, the construction of freeways in Chicago, which spatially restricted black communities from access to neighboring white communities, could be seen as a cause of the unequal environmental geography in the city.

Furthermore, the Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty report also states that, “Six metropolitan areas account for half of all people of color living in close proximity to all of the nation’s commercial hazardous waste facilities: Los Angeles, New York, Detroit, Chicago, Oakland, and Orange County, CA” (Bullard et al 2008, 405). As the report suggests, Northern (and Western) cities are hubs for racist environmental injustices. As segregation was not legally enforced in the North to the extent that it was in the Jim Crow South, it would be incorrect to suggest that only segregation upheld by law has historical roots in environmental racism as the biggest oppressors (in regards to hazardous waste facilities) are, in fact, Northern cities. Therefore, as seen through examples such as the freeway planning in Chicago and suburbanization in Los Angeles, de facto segregation is a prevalent theme in urban neighborhoods across the country; de facto segregation in Northern and Western urban hubs has directly sparked environmental injustices that can be observed today.

Similar to the de facto segregation established through suburbanization, infrastructural projects, and other urban projects that spatially contained minorities, segregation that was not institutionalized (de facto) in the business realm (both through nonprofit lobbyists and through specific privatized industries) also could be traced to as a potential cause of racism through environmental inequality. To commence, in the 1970s and 1980s, environmental non-profit organizations in Southern Arizona directly influenced the variance in environmental conditions based on racialized geographies, as they raised funds and made efforts to make white districts of Tucson and other cities cleaner and more sustainable, while leaving minority communities behind (Clarke and Gerlak 1998, 862). Through the usage of governmental and business power (despite being non-profits), white environmental organizations were able to fund projects that would be most advantageous to their communities, leaving Hispanic and African American communities in more environmentally hazardous zones. Thus, de facto segregation spurred through the agenda of non-profit organizations led by white people could be seen as a key cause in the disparity in environments between white and black communities in cities like Tucson.

To further this, rural environments are also scenes of environmental subjection today. In the South, pesticides that were toxic and linked to certain diseases played a key component in the efficiency of agriculture in the region, thus giving whites in power, like Jamie Whitten (a U.S. representative, white supremacist and advocate for the pesticides industry despite its racist attributions) the incentive to use the pesticides on a wide scale, even if this caused health consequences for laborers in the region, who were generally black (Williams 2018, 243-258). Williams analyzes historical accounts of doctors and medical professionals in the Mississippi Delta region and concludes that African Americans were clearly adversely influenced (in regards to health) by the introduction of pesticides to Southern agriculture, therefore, representing that business ventures also produced environmental racism (Williams 2018, 243-258).

As exemplified by Williams’ case study on the impact that the pesticide industry’s power in the South has had on African Americans in the region, business practices and agendas have also played a role in the development of environmental racism. Businesses and industries, like the pesticides industry, that were funded and are still funded by rich white people to the expense of the well-being of black people, could be seen as agents of environmental racism in many cases; given that the policies they advocate for, in desire for maximized profits and white power, are harmful to African Americans’ health and sense of well-being. Therefore, there are several contributions that non-profit organizations and businesses/industries run by whites in power have made that have directly caused environmental injustice, in the form of health risks and hazards that disproportionately affect the black community. These contributions took the forms of advancements for white communities as well as the creation of obstacles to the African American community’s success and overall well-being.

Thus, de jure and de facto segregation prevalent in the Jim Crow South and urban North in the early and mid 1900s, as well as the de jure and de facto segregation established through business practices and urban plight in the late 1900s have all played a crucial role in developing the environmental injustices that face the African American community today. As seen through the interconnections between controversial expressways in Chicago (Shabazz 2017, 64), to the disproportionate representation of black people at low-lying (unfavorable) topographies in Southern cities (Ueland and Warf 2006, 50-73), to the environmental hazards plaguing black people in urban neighborhoods in the West and North (Bullard et al 2008, 405) to the not-so “color blind” (Jaime Whitten hypocritically said he advocated for “color blind” politics when clearly his policies directly caused African American people to get sick) politics of the pesticide industry and its place in Southern agriculture (Williams 2018, 243-59). Environmental racism in its current form can be traced back to historical forms of segregation, whether legally mandated or not, that produced the geographies and conditions that are associated with modern-day environmental racism. Therefore, both twentieth century de jure and de facto segregation play a vital role in shaping modern-day racialized environmental injustice.
 
 
 
 
 
 Citations

• Bullard, Robert, Paul Mohai, Robin Saha, and Beverly Wright. "Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty: Why Race Still Matters after All of These Years." Environmental Law 38, no. 2 (2008): 371-412.
• Chase, Brett, and Patrick Judge. “Interactive Map: Pollution Hits Chicago's West, South Sides Hardest.” Better Government Association, September 25, 2019. https://www.bettergov.org/news/interactive-map-pollution-hits-chicagos-west-south-sides-hardest.
• Clarke, Jeanne Nienaber, and Andrea K. Gerlak. “RESEARCH: Environmental Racism in the Sunbelt? A Cross-Cultural Analysis.” Environmental Management 22, no. 6 (January 1998): 857–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679900153.
• Hoelscher, Steven. “Making Place, Making Race: Performances of Whiteness in the Jim Crow South.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93, no. 3 (2003): 657–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.9303008.
• Oldfield, John. “State Politics, Railroads, and Civil Rights in South Carolina, 1883-89.” American Nineteenth Century History 5, no. 2 (July 2004): 71–91. doi:10.1080/1466465042000257864.
• Pulido, Laura. “Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California.” Environment, 2017, 13-34. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315256351-17.
• Shabazz, Rashad. “Carceral Interstice.” University of Illinois Press, 2017, 55–75. https://doi.org/10.5406/illinois/9780252039645.003.0004.
• Shabazz, Rashad. “‘Our Prison.’” University of Illinois Press, 2017, 31–54. https://doi.org/10.5406/illinois/9780252039645.003.0003.
• Ueland, Jeff, and Barney Warf. “Racialized Topographies: Altitude and Race in Southern Cities.” Geographical Review 96, no. 1 (January 2006): 50–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2006.tb00387.x.
• Supreme Court Of The United States. U.S. Reports: Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. 1895. Periodical. https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep163537/.
• Walker, David, and Peter P. Hinks. 2000. David Walker's appeal to the coloured citizens of the world. 1-9. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press.
• "What Are De Jure And De Facto Segregation? - Edupedia". 2018. Edupedia. Accessed November 16 2019. https://www.theedadvocate.org/edupedia/content/what-are-de-jure-and-de-facto-segregation/
• Williams, Brian. “‘That We May Live’: Pesticides, Plantations, and Environmental Racism in the United States South.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 1, no. 1-2 (2018): 243–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848618778085.